Would you trade for Jimmy Graham?· Page 23

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

10 years ago

Last playoff game against San Fran looked competitive to me. It was a thrilling yet heartbreaking game. It came down to who had the ball last, and we were playing with our most important guys on defense out and a rookie DE playing OLB. Hyde played very well last season but you can bet your ass Shields makes that pick at the end of the game and we probably end up winning and who knows what happens from there. We are getting close; just got to stay healthy.

Originally Posted by: DarkaneRules

Yep...competitive. It took frigid temps that SF clearly wasn't used to to even the playing field for us.

So, we can almost beat SF, but then there's...SEATTLE who is better.

Graham helps us so much. Just a stud TE. We need studs to compete or are you going to trust Dom Capers is going to construct plans to stop SF and SEA? Now, that is funny or sad.

Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."

dhazer
Veteran Member

10 years ago

#222

I doubt that very much. Most unsettled position on the team per Jerry Fontenot. I don't think they're any more confident than they were with what they had at S or ILB heading into last year. It's a huge risk rolling into the year with no proven option and the most experienced one missing all OTA's.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

No proven option hmmmmmmm, If I recall we have a guy that played alot the past few years including a guy that we wona Super Bowl with, but I guess he is unproven as you say.

Just Imagine this for the next 6-9 years. What a ride it will be 🙂 (PS, Zero should charge for this)

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

10 years ago

#223

No proven option hmmmmmmm, If I recall we have a guy that played alot the past few years including a guy that we wona Super Bowl with, but I guess he is unproven as you say.

Originally Posted by: dhazer

You think Andrew Quarless is a proven #1 TE? BTW, if that is what you really think and it must be...How proven is Frank Zombo? Do you even know where that proven SB winning OLB is these days?

Andrew Quarless in 2010...

21 receptions 238 yards and 1 TD in regular season

In 4 games in the playoffs during our SB run:

5 receptions 46 yards ZERO TD's

Yes, I can see how proven he is. His best game with Rodgers at the helm for a full game was 3 for 35. He is a PROVEN commodity. 3 for freaking 35. That is his career best with Rodgers at the helm for a full game. So, his highest total of receptions with Rodgers is THREE and his most yards with Rodgers is THIRTY FIVE. Proven! Case closed!

Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."

DoddPower
Veteran Member

10 years ago

#224

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

I suppose you are correct. It's obvious the Packers can't win without a top-flight tight end. You have proved your point and history is on your side. An elite quarterback, very good running back, and a very good to great wide receiving core combined with an OK-to-decent tight end group simply isn't enough for the Packers to achieve much of anything. If only the Packers had an elite tight end, they could be champions. 2010 was a complete fluke, and should have an asterisk by it in the history books.

Either way, I still don't think an elite tight end would make anywhere near as much of a different as a good to very-good defense would. It's not even close.

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

10 years ago

#225

Originally Posted by: DoddPower

You might be right about the D but how many high picks do you want to shuttle to Dom's careful hands? The defense has had issues for years and several attempts to fix it have failed. That is TT, that is Dom and now it's Mike McCarthy also.

Have you recently seen the team head into the season with such a terrible group of TE's?

We're all about to see just how much the lack of a TE means to the Packers. The year we won the SB we had a good D. I would say we don't have one now. Let's see if the pairing of no good TE and no good D works out for us. Many here think Quarless and his ring justify him and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt we can win it all without a good TE this year. We shall see.

Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."

DoddPower
Veteran Member

10 years ago

#226

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

There's no definitive proof of anything. There is no single path of becoming a championship football team. Every team is going to have weaknesses, especially one paying an elite quarterback and a few other top of league players. If a tight end group of Quarless, Rodgers, Taylor, Lyerla, Bostick, Stoneburner, et al. is the Packers biggest weakness, most people would be more than OK with that. Recent history has proven that the Packers can still be very deadly with a below average tight end group. Of course it would be better if the Packers had a more "proven" option, but that doesn't mean they can't win without one. It's also not unreasonable to think one of the players currently on the roster might actually be pretty good. The factors that will limit the Packers chance at becoming champions again are:

1.) Injuries
2.) Defense (basically every position except cornerback, maybe)
3.) Offensive Line
4.) Coaching
5.) Tight ends

One could probably even find other items to put in front of number 5. The gap between #5 and 1-4 is substantial. The Packers could still easily lose with Jimmy Graham and a horrible defense. Last year's Super Bowl is a pretty good example of that. Personally, I would rather the team go in with a mediocre tight end group with some potential and a very good defense, than an elite tight end and a horrible defense. It's unrealistic to expect a team to have it all, despite how much we would all love that. It's not the way the league is designed to function.

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

10 years ago

#227

Originally Posted by: DoddPower

Right, there may be no proof... but there rarely ever is in anything. However, when I type something that I strongly believe (no real proof) I'm a F'ing blankety blank but when you or others do it (no real proof) you're right and all of a sudden there is a board that has a mind that is anti what I'm all about even though neither side has no real proof. It's fine that you find strength in numbers. I know you do. That is why I played the Schefter, Werder, Davis, Florio card. You think that this is all of you against me and me only. It wasn't. I was hardly alone, maybe here, but not among people who are very rigorous followers of the NFL. That was meant to remove your collective superiority complex against my way of thinking by citing the numbers on this board were in your favor. I even was told that someone here asked about 20 of his Packers friends about this. BTW, if it was truly insane, that question would never have been posed to 20 of his Packers fan buddies. That poster got some confidence that I was wrong by asking 20 of his friends who follow the Packers if that made sense. Of course, I know none of these people and all of them might not be able to spell cat if spotted the c and the t but that is validation I'm wrong. However, 4 respected members of the NFL media are just nobodies and I get mocked for stating that to buoy my point. Again, if you don't see the richness of the irony.

I would add SAFETY to the top of your list...ILB is up there, too. DL might be up there also. TE is the only one you mentioned that is a skill position that plays with Aaron Rodgers. We may have the weakest overall receiving unit in the NFCN when the TE is factored in. Again, Packer fan thinks that Green Bay is superior in this position group because that's how it was when we had Jennings, Jordy, Driver, Cobb, Jones and Finley. We aren't the same anymore. We've changed...not a little....a lot. I'm not so sure WR is such a great strength. I love Cobb and I really like Jordy... the rest I'm not so sure about. I have high hopes for Abby and Janis and am worried about Adams.

One big point is... it is silly to say Quarless is good because we won the SB with him at TE. It is also silly to say we don't need a good TE to win the SB, if the defense in 2014 isn't anywhere near as good as it was in 2010. We may need the TE position to be a great strength with our weak D this year. Having a weak TE and a weak D won't be a good combo.

Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."

DoddPower
Veteran Member

10 years ago

#228

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

What? These are the type of responses that don't even merit responses. I'll just let you have your space there.

I would add SAFETY to the top of your list...ILB is up there, too. DL might be up there also. TE is the only one you mentioned that is a skill position that plays with Aaron Rodgers. We may have the weakest overall receiving unit in the NFCN when the TE is factored in. Again, Packer fan thinks that Green Bay is superior in this position group because that's how it was when we had Jennings, Jordy, Driver, Cobb, Jones and Finley. We aren't the same anymore. We've changed...not a little....a lot. I'm not so sure WR is such a great strength. I love Cobb and I really like Jordy... the rest I'm not so sure about. I have high hopes for Abby and Janis and am worried about Adams.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

That's exactly why I listed the entire defense, except for potentially cornerback. You are worried about the Packers offense, I am not. I think they will be fine. Eddie Lacy and James Starks have to be factored into the equation, as well. The Packers might not have the best offensive weapons on paper, but I think they will still have a top offense in terms of production, which is really all that matters in the end. It could be better. That will always be the case. But I have more faith in the young options developing nicely than you do and I see little reason to doubt Ted Thompson or the Green Bay Packers coaching staffs ability in that arena. They consistently develop talent there. Boykin has already proven he can be a solid #3 or 4 wide receiver. The combination of Adams, Abbrederis, Janis, and others makes me feel comfortable for the number 4 and 5 wide receiver spots.

One big point is... it is silly to say Quarless is good because we won the SB with him at TE. It is also silly to say we don't need a good TE to win the SB, if the defense in 2014 isn't anywhere near as good as it was in 2010. We may need the TE position to be a great strength with our weak D this year. Having a weak TE and a weak D won't be a good combo.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

I never said Quarless is good because the Packers won a Super Bowl. I said recent Packers history has proven it's possible to win with a mediocre tight end group. In other words, it's not absolutely essential to have an elite tight end. I do, however, think it is essential to have a very good defense, at minimum. Which is why I would prefer resources devoted to that side of the ball rather than a position that I don't believe is an absolute requirement. I don't care how many draft picks it takes, so long as it gets fixed soon. I don't expect to win a Super Bowl every season, or even very often no matter who is running the team. But a couple holes filled on defense and the Packers are as much of a contender as anyone else. That's not a bad position to be in. Life is pretty good as a Packers fan.

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

10 years ago

#229

What? These are the type of responses that don't even merit responses. I'll just let you have your space there.

Originally Posted by: DoddPower

It absolutely merits a response. It is at the heart of the supposed issues with me. I say stupid things...I'm the one with a superiority complex. According to who? You and a couple of other guys on a message board? Oh no! Not that! Anything but some guys on a message board banding together to tell me I'm dumb and feel superior? How hurtful that is. You absolutely have to be right because you've been on a message board for some time together! No way it is you who is "dumb" and have a "superiority complex". I will ask this question again and again and again with no answer. Do you feel you are right when you offer an opinion? You absolutely believe it or you wouldn't post it. Same with me. Why the charge that I feel superior because I think my opinion is right when you think yours is right also? HYPOCRISY. Ultimate hypocrisy. The difference is presentation. I am sold out for my opinion. A lot of you say one line and try to hide behind the idea that my opinion is crazy and "doesn't merit a response". You don't respond because you can't respond intelligently so the best thing to do is label and mock me and my opinion. It's great reading. I know, I know this doesn't merit a response. Classic.

Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."

sschind
Senior Member

10 years ago

#230

I'll continue riding with Schefter, Werder, Nate Davis and Mike Florio on this one. We're the "stupid" group for sure. Packers are "well stocked" and ready to roll at TE. Oh, and even if they aren't there is so much overwhelming talent on O, plus, don't forget we have Aaron who makes everything all better to cover all of our deficiencies. So, instead of accentuating Aaron's abilities we're going to just drain them and hope we don't drain them enough to compete with the Seattle and SF's of the world. We think that much of him that he's got enough.

No Jimmy Graham news... So, it is assumed Graham did not appeal his decision of being a TE at 7 million for the franchise tag, yesterday. Tuesday the 15th is almost here.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

You looked for people who agreed with you and you ride with them but did you ever consider how many of these guy's peers think it is a bad idea? I've said it before but fans are not always the most objective people to be listening to. We have too much invested emotionally to think rationally at times (that goes both ways with this argument as well)

The problem is that this sort of topic is only going to come up from one of these guys if they think it is a good idea so if another thinks its a bad idea, unless he is responding directly, he is not going to come out and say "I think its a bad idea"

For example, lets just say someone thinks its a good idea if the Packers traded Rodgers for a bunch of players and picks to restock. He is going to write an article or post on a blog somewhere where he thinks this is a good idea. On the other hand, the guys who think this is a bad idea are not going to simply out of the blue fire off an article saying its a bad idea for the Packers to trade Rodgers.

Its the good idea people that start the whole thing and then a few bad idea people might respond but most will probably just ignore it unless specifically asked. They are too busy looking for their own headline grabbing good ideas to waste their time on such nonsense.

That is why it is not too difficult to find a few people who would agree with just about any idea.

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

Zero2Cool (2h) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them

Zero2Cool (2h) : I just checked. What tie breaker?

bboystyle (2h) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner

Zero2Cool (2h) : Ahh, ok.

bboystyle (2h) : yes due to tie breaker

Zero2Cool (2h) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.

Zero2Cool (2h) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?

bboystyle (2h) : Minny isnt going to lose out so 5th seed is out of the equation. We are playing for the 6th or 7th seed which makes no difference

Mucky Tundra (3h) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network

beast (3h) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th

beast (3h) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly

Zero2Cool (4h) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.

bboystyle (4h) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed

Mucky Tundra (4h) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv

Zero2Cool (4h) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno

beast (4h) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?

packerfanoutwest (5h) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans

Zero2Cool (5h) : I see what you did there Mucky

Zero2Cool (5h) : dammit. 3:25pm

Zero2Cool (5h) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm

Mucky Tundra (5h) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground

Mucky Tundra (5h) : Yeah baby!

Zero2Cool (6h) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah

Zero2Cool (7h) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.

beast (7h) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue

Zero2Cool (8h) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's

Zero2Cool (8h) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.

packerfanoutwest (8h) : ok I stand corrected

Zero2Cool (8h) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th

Zero2Cool (8h) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?

beast (8h) : Saying no to the 6th lock.

beast (8h) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out

Zero2Cool (8h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.

beast (8h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games

beast (8h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality

beast (8h) : We already have told you... if Packers lose all their games (they won't, but if they did), and Buccaneers and Falcons win all theirs

Zero2Cool (8h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread

Zero2Cool (8h) : I literally just said it.

packerfanoutwest (8h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't

Zero2Cool (8h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.

Zero2Cool (8h) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.

packerfanoutwest (9h) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what

Zero2Cool (9h) : Packers should get in. I just hope it's not 7th seed. Feels dirty.

packerfanoutwest (9h) : If packers lose out, no matter what, they are in

packerfanoutwest (9h) : both teams can not male the playoffs....falcon hold the tie breaker

packerfanoutwest (9h) : if bucs win out they win their division

beast (9h) : Fine, Buccaneers and Falcons can get ahead of us

packerfanoutwest (9h) : falcons are already ahead of us

beast (9h) : Packers will get in

beast (9h) : If Packers lose the rest of their games and Falcons win the rest of theirs, they could pass us... but not gonna happen

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2024 Packers Schedule

Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM

Eagles

29 - 34

Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM

COLTS

16 - 10

Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM

Titans

30 - 14

Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

29 - 31

Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM

Rams

24 - 19

Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM

CARDINALS

34 - 13

Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM

TEXANS

24 - 22

Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM

Jaguars

30 - 27

Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

14 - 24

Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM

Bears

20 - 19

Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM

49ERS

38 - 10

Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM

DOLPHINS

30 - 17

Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM

Lions

31 - 34

Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM

Seahawks

30 - 13

Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM

SAINTS

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS